This is all too much to read. What's the short version?
The short version is:
There were only 2 attacks, not 3.
The attacks were not continuous. There was about a 10 min. interval between them when the killer moved his car to a parking place farther away.
There were not 38 eye witnesses to either of the attacks. Only 3 people are known to have seen one or the other of the stabbings.
The first attack on Austin Street - the one that awakened the witnesses - was likely over before all but a few of the witnesses got to their windows.
Probably many more than 38 were ear witnesses to Kitty's screams. However, that first attack occurred a few yards away from a bar known for its late night rowdiness.
After the first attack, Kitty left the scene under her own power without making any outcries for help.
The second attack took place in a small vestibule in the rear of a building where only one witness was in a position to see it.
Given the layout of the crime scene, it would have been impossible for anyone to have seen or heard everything.
Assuming the police were not timely called - a big assumption in my opinion - there were reasons apart from apathy why they were not.
Are you saying the witnesses were blameless?
No. I'm saying that the case against them has been badly overstated. Author and freelance writer, Jim Rasenberger put it best. He said: "... if the story had not been exaggerated, it would have been a 3 day story, maybe a 5 day story, rather than a 40 year story."
How can you defend these people?
My purpose is to set the record straight. I play devil's advocate where the evidence permits it, but I am not an apologist.
What do you hope to accomplish?
I did these articles as an academic exercise, not a crusade. They are intended to be a resource for researchers and journalists.
Is yours the last word on the subject?
No. What I did was to look at the record of the killer's trial and other reliable mainstream publications. There could still be evidence out there that I have not seen.
Are you a revisionist?
No, I'm an anti-revisionist. My argument is that the official Court explanation of how Kitty died is correct. It's the popular beliefs about the case that are wrong.
Why should I believe you rather than the New York Times?
You have to make up your own mind. However, what I have written has been cited or referred to in the following publications (including the New York Times) - indicating that I can be taken seriously.
Rachel Manning, Mark Levine, Alan Collins, "The Kitty Genovese murder and the social psychology of helping: The parable of the 38 witnesses," American Psychologist, pp. 555 - 562 (Sept. 2007)
("De May Jr's meticulous analysis has taken place over the last several years and it has deservedly begun to attract attention (e.g. Rasenberger, 2004, Takooshian et al, 2005), though the implication of our argument is that it deserves still more.") [Get the article] [Read an earlier draft of the article for free]
Matthew Engel, "The error of his wars," Financial Times (May 19, 2007) (Beginning at the 10th full para.)
("Truly, citizen-journalism blooms in the unlikeliest places. For there, amid news of the civic association's community day (June 10) and photos of the old railroad station, is a remarkable deconstruction of the Times story.") [Read the article]
Kevin Dwyer and Jure Fiorillo, True Stories of Law & Order: The Real Crimes Behind the Best Episodes of the Hit TV Show, p. 252 (n.6) (2006)
("For what is perhaps the most in-depth account of the Kitty Genovese murder and subsequent controversy, see www.oldkewgardens.com . . . . The website was invaluable to authors researching this case.") [Get the book]
Jim Rasenberger, "Nightmare On Austin Street", American Heritage Magazine (Oct. 2006)
("The most recent debunking is the work not of a journalist but of a lawyer and Kew Gardens resident named Joseph De May, Jr., whose analysis of the original Times article, posted at oldkewgardens.com, is exhaustive and eviscerating.") [Read the article]
Prof. Harold Takooshian, "Remembering Catherine "Kitty" Genovese 40 years later: A public forum," References at p. 84, Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless (Vol. 14, 2005) [Get the article]
Jim Rasenberger, "Kitty, 40 Years Later", Sect. 14, p. 1, New York Times (Final Ed.) (Feb. 8, 2004)
("In the end, Mr. De May's conclusion about the murder is that, while the behavior of the witnesses was hardly beyond reproach, the common conception of exactly what occurred that night is not in fact what occurred. What did occur, he argues, is far more complex and far less damning to the residents of Kew Gardens.") [Read the article]
Shouldn't Kew Gardens be ashamed of what happened?
Whatever the witnesses may have been guilty of, their failings were either individual failings or human failings. They were not the failings of just a single community.
Have you made any money from these articles?
No. I put them in the public domain so they can be used, in whole or in part, without credit or compensation to me.
The short version is:
No. I'm saying that the case against them has been badly overstated. Author and freelance writer, Jim Rasenberger put it best. He said: "... if the story had not been exaggerated, it would have been a 3 day story, maybe a 5 day story, rather than a 40 year story."
My purpose is to set the record straight. I play devil's advocate where the evidence permits it, but I am not an apologist.
I did these articles as an academic exercise, not a crusade. They are intended to be a resource for researchers and journalists.
No. What I did was to look at the record of the killer's trial and other reliable mainstream publications. There could still be evidence out there that I have not seen.
No, I'm an anti-revisionist. My argument is that the official Court explanation of how Kitty died is correct. It's the popular beliefs about the case that are wrong.
You have to make up your own mind. However, what I have written has been cited or referred to in the following publications (including the New York Times) - indicating that I can be taken seriously.
Whatever the witnesses may have been guilty of, their failings were either individual failings or human failings. They were not the failings of just a single community.
No. I put them in the public domain so they can be used, in whole or in part, without credit or compensation to me.